Issue arises as to the design of the "standard" missile and continuous burn propulsion. To whit:
According to Special Supplement 3, "Continuous Burn propulsion systems are solid fuel motors which operate at maximum efficiency when ignited and until their fuel is exhausted. They cannot be turned off once started. They are, however, relatively cheap, and technologically easy to manufacture.
"A continuous burn missile must always use its maximum acceleration in each turn until its fuel is exhausted. For example, a 3G6 continuous burn missile must accelerate 300 millimeters in its first turn and 300 millimeters in its second turn; thereafter, its fuel is exhausted. Continuous burn systems cannot alter course; they continue on the course given them when fired."
So, we're looking at your basic tube filled with solid propellant: once you ignite it, it keeps burning until the propellant's all used up.
The current "standard" missile design, per Errata 07, is, "a 5G6 continuous burn (36 kg, Cr3,600, TL 8), mass sensing (1 kg, Cr1,000, TL 10), proximity detonator (1 kg, Cr500, TL 6), high explosive (10 kg, Cr500, TL 6) warhead missile (all produced at their standard tech level), costing Cr5,600 and massing 48 kg. This price does not take into account tech level effects. At TL 9, this missile costs Cr5,540; at TL 12, it costs Cr4,480."
(minor errata point: the 5G6 is 35 kg and Cr3500)
Note that under current rules, the standard missile, "cannot alter course; they continue on the course given them when fired." So, if you don't hit the target in the first turn, the target needs only to "sidestep" for the missile to miss completely on the next or subsequent turns. Yet, this missile carries fuel for 6 turns. It also carries a guidance system - the mass sensor - even though it can't be guided; it has to continue on the course given at launch. It lacks a controller, a required component that needs to accompany the mass sensor, but in this case there's nothing to control because the rules say continuous burn missiles can't alter course.
There's actually no logic to the "cannot alter course" bit. There are several ways to alter course in vacuum. Some aren't practical for solid fuel missiles, but there are two ways to cause the missile to point its butt in a new direction and thereby alter course, and there's really no reason they can't be used regardless of the type of propulsion system:
1) You put small jets at key points along the body of the missile, just like you would on a ship. They don't have to be big or powerful - they just need to make a 50 kilogram tube turn on its axis, and they only need to do that a few times. Once they turn the missile, the propulsion system will provide the vector change.
2) You put a gyroscopic system in the missile. The gyroscopic system takes advantage of conservation of angular momentum: it's the principal that makes a top stay upright when it's spinning. Spin up the gyroscopic system before launch and it can be used to make the missile turn.
None of this alters the thrust output - the missile would still need to make a vector change equal to its thrust every turn until it runs out of fuel or hits something. However, it would be able to alter course to intercept a target. Inasmuch as these alternatives are effectively providing course adjustments, they'd be considered to be part of the controller.
The questions are: should we alter the "continuous burn" rules to permit a continuous burn missile to alter course, should we alter the standard missile to equip it with a controller, and should we change the propulsion system to a limited or discretionary burn propulsion system?
According to Special Supplement 3, "Continuous Burn propulsion systems are solid fuel motors which operate at maximum efficiency when ignited and until their fuel is exhausted. They cannot be turned off once started. They are, however, relatively cheap, and technologically easy to manufacture.
"A continuous burn missile must always use its maximum acceleration in each turn until its fuel is exhausted. For example, a 3G6 continuous burn missile must accelerate 300 millimeters in its first turn and 300 millimeters in its second turn; thereafter, its fuel is exhausted. Continuous burn systems cannot alter course; they continue on the course given them when fired."
So, we're looking at your basic tube filled with solid propellant: once you ignite it, it keeps burning until the propellant's all used up.
The current "standard" missile design, per Errata 07, is, "a 5G6 continuous burn (36 kg, Cr3,600, TL 8), mass sensing (1 kg, Cr1,000, TL 10), proximity detonator (1 kg, Cr500, TL 6), high explosive (10 kg, Cr500, TL 6) warhead missile (all produced at their standard tech level), costing Cr5,600 and massing 48 kg. This price does not take into account tech level effects. At TL 9, this missile costs Cr5,540; at TL 12, it costs Cr4,480."
(minor errata point: the 5G6 is 35 kg and Cr3500)
Note that under current rules, the standard missile, "cannot alter course; they continue on the course given them when fired." So, if you don't hit the target in the first turn, the target needs only to "sidestep" for the missile to miss completely on the next or subsequent turns. Yet, this missile carries fuel for 6 turns. It also carries a guidance system - the mass sensor - even though it can't be guided; it has to continue on the course given at launch. It lacks a controller, a required component that needs to accompany the mass sensor, but in this case there's nothing to control because the rules say continuous burn missiles can't alter course.
There's actually no logic to the "cannot alter course" bit. There are several ways to alter course in vacuum. Some aren't practical for solid fuel missiles, but there are two ways to cause the missile to point its butt in a new direction and thereby alter course, and there's really no reason they can't be used regardless of the type of propulsion system:
1) You put small jets at key points along the body of the missile, just like you would on a ship. They don't have to be big or powerful - they just need to make a 50 kilogram tube turn on its axis, and they only need to do that a few times. Once they turn the missile, the propulsion system will provide the vector change.
2) You put a gyroscopic system in the missile. The gyroscopic system takes advantage of conservation of angular momentum: it's the principal that makes a top stay upright when it's spinning. Spin up the gyroscopic system before launch and it can be used to make the missile turn.
None of this alters the thrust output - the missile would still need to make a vector change equal to its thrust every turn until it runs out of fuel or hits something. However, it would be able to alter course to intercept a target. Inasmuch as these alternatives are effectively providing course adjustments, they'd be considered to be part of the controller.
The questions are: should we alter the "continuous burn" rules to permit a continuous burn missile to alter course, should we alter the standard missile to equip it with a controller, and should we change the propulsion system to a limited or discretionary burn propulsion system?
